3 ms·
OP here. This is a good point. While I certainly think there is value in reading _how_ to do things better, IMO there is an upper limit on this. I more often se
by stephsmithio 7y ago
OP here. This is a good point. While I certainly think there is value in reading _how_ to do things better, IMO there is an upper limit on this. I more often see people reading about X, Y, or Z, never to actually take action, rather than the other way around. I also think you learn iteratively by doing.
However, I do agree that it is necessary to take a step back and learn from others along the way.
- douglaswlance 7y agoAre you suggesting that scientists shouldn't read about the latest developments in their field? They should just start from scratch and try to figure out everything without any prior knowledge or learning from others?
- claudiulodro 7y agoClearly she is not suggesting that, as nobody reasonable would ever suggest that. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
- travisjungroth 7y agoMy take is there is reading as doing and reading as watching. Reading the research of other scientists is reading as doing. Reading about how other people become scientists is reading as watching.
- am2c 7y agoI write fiction in my spare time, and at least anecdotally, I think the obsessive readers, the most well-read folks in the workshops/classes I've done have consistently been the best writers. I know writers who have written millions of words, but don't read enough to pick up an intuitive sense of what good looks like. I'm often astonished, when I read old interviews with great writers in The Paris Review's Writers at Work series, just how well-read the masters are. They've read everything. Soaked it all in. And writers borrow, copy, steal, adapt, all the time. Of course, I agree with the heart of the matter, that just doing the thing is most important, but I do wonder if it is sufficient.